Colossian Blog

Are you hoping to end the summer with some good reading? If you would like to see what our writers are saying about the latest books, take a look at theÂ book reviews sectionÂ on our website. And for recommended reading, see ourÂ bibliography.

C. Ben Mitchell: Science, Faith and The Stakeholders from The Colossian Forum on Vimeo. Do you believe that understanding what's at stake for your interlocutors might change the way you frame your questions? Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, philosophy professor at Union University in Jackson, TN, sat down with us to discuss the significance of â€śstakeholdersâ€ť participating together in the conversation on science and faith. Mitchell says that understanding the diversity of views helps us to frame our questions properly. If whatâ€™s at stake for us is primarily our common pursuit of truth and our Christian witness, our questions typically will not be framed in such a way that assumes the superiority of one view over another on a partisan culture war spectrum. Furthermore, appreciating and respecting the diversity of views among Christians on, say, the origins of humanity, implies an appreciation of whatâ€™s at stake for the Christian who holds a different view than you on this issue. This appreciation of whatâ€™s at stake obliges us to frame our questions with the utmost discernment. For the evolutionary creationist, this might mean asking a young-earth creationist what fears prevent her from accepting evolution rather than framing the question in such a way that assumes her blatant refusal to accept something â€śplain and clear.â€ť It might also be worthwhile to ask about her concerns regarding the relationship between evolution and the problem of evil and death. For the young-earth creationist, this might mean asking an evolutionary creationist why he believes accepting the evidence for evolution implies an appreciation for embodiment and Godâ€™s good world. See the entirety fo the video here, and check out our "films" page for more videos.

Dr. Brad Kallenberg has recently written a glossary item for us on â€śtradition-based rationality,â€ť a term derived from Alasdair MacIntyre. Kallenberg begins the essay by explaining the sense in which conceptual language is shaped and shared by communities. The explanation assumes a view of the â€śmakeupâ€ť of humanity by which the embodied practices and immersion in a way of life develops the vocabulary of the community that shares in the given way of life. The vocabulary of conceptual language is not vacuous, in other words; it does not â€ścorrespondâ€ť to things and concepts that are â€śout thereâ€ť somewhere. Rather, as embodied and desiring creatures aimed at an end (a telos), our conceptual vocabulary is shaped by the desire for the internal goods of the community aimed at these ends. When I played collegiate baseball, one goal (telos) of playing was to bring college students together, and winning often helped achieve that end. But winning was not an end in itself. An internal good of this team (a community) was the friendship of college students, so the conceptual language of â€śvictoryâ€ť meant something different to us than it would for teams that thought winning was an end in itself. As an example of the acquisition of conceptual language, Kallenberg says that one â€ścomes to read music with comprehension while learning to play an instrument (or sing in a choir) with other musicians.â€ť The â€ślanguageâ€ť of music is acquired in, through, and by the whole choir or the whole group of musicians. The same is the case for the language of theology, says Kallenberg: "By participating with others in those activities in which the word â€śGodâ€ť is at home â€“ activities such as praying, confessing, thanking, evangelizing, worshipping â€“ one will slowly become fluent in the language of God." Indeed, theological language is not something we can learn about merely from good books (although thatâ€™s important, too!). We must also immerse ourselves in the kind of practices that make such language intelligible in the first place. For example, when Iâ€™m immersed in the liturgical rituals that teach me that â€śfreedomâ€ť is being rightfully constrained as a slave to Christ, the broader cultureâ€™s association of â€śfreedomâ€ť with the freedom from constraint becomes unintelligible to me. In both cases there are embodied practices that determine the meaning of the word â€śfreedom,â€ť and they are quite different. The communities in which this conceptual language is formed are shaped over time, and they constitute â€śtraditions.â€ť As Kallenberg points out, MacIntyre defines a tradition as â€śan historically extended, socially embodied argument.â€ť The argument, he says, is the ongoing discussion over the meaning of the vocabulary used in these communities. The understanding of this vocabulary is shown â€śby the way that [the adherents] talk and live with each other.â€ť "For example, Christians understand â€śGood Newsâ€ť to entail daily acts of forgiveness. Christiansâ€™ forgiveness of each other ought thus to be regular enough to outsiders to recognize it in the pattern of Christian interactions. (Likeness, Christian communities that are devoid of such daily acts of forgiveness display that their concept of forgiveness is empty.)" Given all of this, Kallenberg says that human reasoning is both tradition-constitutive and tradition-constituted. Itâ€™s tradition-constitutive because â€śthe entire web of conversations across timeâ€¦ comprises or constitutes a living tradition.â€ť Itâ€™s tradition-constituted because it is always â€ślocated within some tradition or other.â€ť This is quite a different understanding of rationality than whatâ€™s been offered by the Enlightenment!

When I try to explain to family and friends what exactly the mission of The Colossian Forum is, Iâ€™m often asked what we mean when we say that the virtues are cultivated through worship. More precisely, people often wonder what definition of â€śworshipâ€ť weâ€™re operating on when we make such an important claim. â€śHow does expressing gratitude to God as I sing songs of praise produce virtue?â€ť I was recently asked. While this question is an important one, we believe there are some rather problematic assumptions in the characteristic of worship as merely an â€śexpression of gratitude.â€ť Of course, I give the questioner the benefit of the doubt that her philosophy of worship is vaster than this, but the commonality of this particular question leads us to wonder how often Christians reduce worship to an expressive-individualistic practice. In fact, we wonder if this is the case because we at The Colossian Forum are just as predisposed to these assumptions as anyone else. I know I find myself describing worship this way more than I'd like. To clarify what we mean by â€śworship,â€ť I want to point you to James K.A. Smithâ€™s glossary entry on â€śWorship: Expression and Formation.â€ť Here Dr. Smith voices a few concerns regarding the reduction of worship to an â€śexpressionâ€ť of an â€śinteriorâ€ť devotion. Furthermore, he reminds us that prior to modernity, Christian worship was considered a formative practice, too. For those who want to understand what exactly we mean by â€śworshipâ€ť as it applies to the formation of the virtues, take a look at Dr. Smithâ€™s entry. While youâ€™re there, also take a look at the recommended reading provided at the bottom.

Dr. David Burrell, professor emeritus of philosophy and theology at the University of Notre Dame, has recently written a glossary item on â€śfriendship in virtue ethicsâ€ť for us. Focusing on sections from Aristotleâ€™s Nichomachean Ethics, Burrell looks at the ethical significance of â€śthe goodâ€ť in relation to friendship. Indeed, Aristotle â€śinsisted that we could not find a good more durable or nourishing than friends.â€ť Whatâ€™s more, oneâ€™s achievement of the good depends on the communal pursuit of this end, such that (authentic) friendship and the good are intimately bound to each other; friendship is a necessary condition of the pursuit of the good, yet an embracing good is what brings friends together. The dynamic relationship between friendship and the pursuit of the good should lead us to question the common definition of a human being as an â€śautonomous individualâ€ť who â€śpicks and choosesâ€ť among options. As Burrell says, â€śtrue friends are more like family: they grow on us and sustain us; we did not choose them! Once we are accustomed to think of ourselves as individuals, however, we will hunger all the more for friends, though we may no longer know how to engage in true friendship.â€ť For more on this, see Dr. Burrellâ€™s full glossary entry here.

Given our interest in the theological interpretation of Scripture, we wanted to point our viewers to the Journal of Theological Interpretation, edited by Joel B. Green. Peruse the website and the table of contents for past issues; perhaps youâ€™ll be interested in the kind of research taking place at the intersection of history, theology, philosophy, and biblical studies, especially as it relates to our own research pertaining to faith and science.

The Colossian Forum equips leaders to transform messy cultural conflicts into opportunities for spiritual growth and witness. Our vision: a Christian community that acts Christian, especially in the face of conflict.